Must trade Lackey next year

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    More realistic choices would be: FAs: Beltran, Cuddyer, Crisp, DeJesus, Berkman, Sizemore, Willingham. Trades: Quentin and who knows who else.
    Posted by moonslav59


    Not Ludwick?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ""TheBabe"". Show ""TheBabe""'s posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : I know! But I do think the Mets would sign CC for $54M/6 this winter if they could, so they'd take him to repalce Beltran. He may flourish in the NL, and I think Santana is still good enough to help us way more than lackey will.

    Posted by moonslav59

    Why would the mets want lackey over santana?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    These are just some salary dump ideas. I am not saying I am for any of these, but am just presented them as possible ways to deal Lackey (and others)...  Lackey ($46M/3) Crawford ($122M/6) for Vernon Wells ($74M/3) D. Haren ($16M/1 counting buyout) The Angels wanted CC last winter... OR Lackey ($46M/3) Dice-K  ($10M/1) Jenks   ($6M/1) Jed Lowrie (arb 1 or 3) Total: $62M for Billingsley ($35M/3 incl. buyout) Ted Lily      ($25M/2) Juan Uribe ($16M/2 incl. buyout) Total: $66M
    Posted by moonslav59

    The Red Sox are more likely to trade Josh Beckett (or perhaps even Jon Lester) than the Angels are to trade Dan Haren or the Dodgers to trade Chad Billingsley.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : If the Sox had Tampa's staff we woud be close to unbeatable.  Our team needs to find another quality starter or two next season to go along with Jon, Josh and Clay.  We also need a stronger pen.  The one guy I won't get down on just yet is CC, until he plays another year or so in Boston.
    Posted by craze4sox


    Agree with you that if they could trade Lackey, they would sign someone else.  If they could also trade Dice-K or if he decides to leave on his own, (he is still under contract until next year).  Some of my Red Sox friends believe that Dice-K could return to Jaoan.  Not sure if this is possible for Dice-K until he returns from surgery.  It isn't easy to sign 2 starters.  What do you have to give up for them or who is traded to acquire these players?  Although, I really thought that Theo would be gone this year.  It doesn't look like he will be leaving for Chicago. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : The Red Sox are more likely to trade Josh Beckett (or perhaps even Jon Lester) than the Angels are to trade Dan Haren or the Dodgers to trade Chad Billingsley.
    Posted by hill55


    Completely disagree.

    While Billingsley did have a lot of promise early on, he has really not been the ace the Dodgers had hoped for, and has really turned into a heavily paid MOR guy.  He is nowhere near the class of Lester or Beckett.  The only thing that keeps their numbers close in the latter two miss more time.

    Billingsley won't be dealt for Lackey, but he is far from untouchable.

    Haren, on the other hand, is one of the more unappreciated talents in MLB. He is staying put...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from bingobilly. Show bingobilly's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    You are living in a dream world if you think some team will TRADE for Lackey.  The only options are an outright release or something whereby the dumb RS eat 99% of his freakin contract.  Just think about it as you collect your next unemployment check, Lackey is making 17M this year.  Clearly, Epstein and his playmates are inept at evaluating so-called talent.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : Why would the mets want lackey over santana?
    Posted by "TheBabe"

    They wouldn't, but they'd be dumping JBay's deal, and Santana only has 2 years left. The Mets can not win in the next 2 years.

    Besides, I never said these deals would or could be made. I just offered them as possible examples of frameworks for salary dump swaps. I think the Mets would want some kids thrown in. If they lose Reyes, they may want Lowrie or Iglesias. Maybe they are high on Doubront, Bowden or Weiland. Maybe they would like Crawford over Bay.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : Completely disagree. While Billingsley did have a lot of promise early on, he has really not been the ace the Dodgers had hoped for, and has really turned into a heavily paid MOR guy.  He is nowhere near the class of Lester or Beckett.  The only thing that keeps their numbers close in the latter two miss more time. Billingsley won't be dealt for Lackey, but he is far from untouchable. Haren, on the other hand, is one of the more unappreciated talents in MLB. He is staying put...
    Posted by notin

    I agree, Billingsley will not be easy to pry from LA. My thought was that maybe Lackey would thrive better in the more relaxed SoCal environment and big parks. LA could be looking to dump salary, and I know it sounds counter productive for them to take on Lackey, but Lackey's deal is spread out over 3 more years, and if we take more slary off their hands than they take on, plus give them some prospects, perhaps they will bite.

    Maybe something more like this...
    Lackey ($46M/3)
    Jed Lowrie (arb 1 or 3) or Iglesias
    Doubront or Bowden
    Total:~ $48M
    for
    Billingsley ($35M/3 incl. buyout)
    Ted Lily      ($25M/2)
    Juan Uribe ($16M/2 incl. buyout)
    Total: $66M

    They save $18M 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : Completely disagree. While Billingsley did have a lot of promise early on, he has really not been the ace the Dodgers had hoped for, and has really turned into a heavily paid MOR guy.  He is nowhere near the class of Lester or Beckett.  The only thing that keeps their numbers close in the latter two miss more time. Billingsley won't be dealt for Lackey, but he is far from untouchable. Haren, on the other hand, is one of the more unappreciated talents in MLB. He is staying put...
    Posted by notin


    I agree notin, few teams "if any" would have any interest in Lackey and we certainly won't be pulling the wool over anyones eyes by getting anything in return even if we could deal him.  This may go down as the worst signing Theo ever made, even Dice gave us a few dominating games.






     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : I agree notin, few teams "if any" would have any interest in Lackey and we certainly won't be pulling the wool over anyones eyes by getting anything in return even if we could deal him.  This may go down as the worst signing Theo ever made, even Dice gave us a few dominating games.
    Posted by craze4sox


    I agree. Dice-K gave us one great season and a few stretches here and there as well.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from promise4you. Show promise4you's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    Why do Sox fans always think someone else wants their failures?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : I agree, Billingsley will not be easy to pry from LA. My thought was that maybe Lackey would thrive better in the more relaxed SoCal environment and big parks. LA could be looking to dump salary, and I know it sounds counter productive for them to take on Lackey, but Lackey's deal is spread out over 3 more years, and if we take more slary off their hands than they take on, plus give them some prospects, perhaps they will bite. Maybe something more like this... Lackey ($46M/3) Jed Lowrie (arb 1 or 3) or Iglesias Doubront or Bowden Total:~ $48M for Billingsley ($35M/3 incl. buyout) Ted Lily      ($25M/2) Juan Uribe ($16M/2 incl. buyout) Total: $66M They save $18M 
    Posted by moonslav59

    John Lackey's contract may be spread out over three years, but so is the less expensive contract of 27-year-old Chad Billingsley, who is a better pitcher than the nearly 33-year-old Lackey.

    You're proposing that the Dodgers trade away two-thirds of their starting rotation for John Lackey and spare parts when free agency awaits Dodger starter Hiroki Kuroda. Jed Lowrie, Jose Iglesias, Felix Doubront and Michael Bowden have limited trade value (Dodger shortstop Dee Gordon entered the season as Baseball America's No.26 ranked prospect, significantly ahead of the No. 52 ranking of Sox prospect Jose Iglesias, whose stock has dropped this season).
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from crmn19. Show crmn19's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    maybe if we throw in crawford someone will take him.
    Posted by bald-predictions


    Ah that's the ticket, Lackey and Crawford to the Dodgers for Kemp, Ethier, Kershaw and Billingsley.  Fair enough deal.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from S0ftl@w. Show S0ftl@w's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    I was opposed to offering Lackey more than 3 years and 30, and wanted Bedard and harden signed to one year deals. This board of losers applauded the Lackey 80M contract. I wanted none of the Big 3 FA that year, but saw Lackey as the lesser of 3 evils since idiot Theo was going to sign one. 

    Henry and Luchino need to fire Theo, regardless of whether this team gets hot in the post season. Crawford and Lackey contracts are the ultimate in idiocy.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    for what or whom? an edsel? a bag of bricks? who in God's name would take him? would have to pay 90% of his remaining salary
    Posted by georom4


    word for word what I was gonna say georom.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from futbal. Show futbal's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    If Buch and Dice K come back OK, the staff is fine for next year and maybe even this year if Buch is ready. Write off Lackey. But it's the 9 hitters that are not good enough to compete in the playoffs this year and quite possilbly next, IMO. The Crawford signing would seem to take the Red Sox out of the running for the big right handed bat that this line up needs, IMO.  Lackey, as big a steaming pile as he is, was less the problem than the Crawford signing.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    Just GIVE him to the Yankees!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    We could even subsidize his contract???   I'd pitch in!!!
     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    The only thing they could get for Lackey would be a used bag of baseballs.

    HE'S GARBAGE.  WORST ERA OF ANY STARTER IN ALL OF BASEBALL.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from BurritoT. Show BurritoT's posts

    Re: Must trade Lackey next year

    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year:
    In Response to Re: Must trade Lackey next year : A perfect fit then, right?
    Posted by moonslav59



    I wish.... he might be worth the gamble if we only could count on Crawford to be an asset rather than a drag on offense. To have Sizemore get hurt and Crawford bat .200 all year would be disastrous.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share